IC's ???

I think you’ve got it. Just to clarify, for America to collect income for a Russian territory, America must liberate the territory from an Axis power. If Russia retains control of a territory and Moscow is Axis-held, nobody collects for it until an Axis power takes that territory.

I played a game where my Japanese counterpart played this strategy upon my recommendation.  It was a disaster for us, because it was just not practical for controlling Asia, at all.

Obviously this is a niche strategy, but there could be some use for it - it may allow the Allies to take one of the money islands as soon as US3. Here’s the plan

UK 1:
Unite Pac fleets in sz 30, build IC Aus

Attacking sz 30 is very risky for Japan, and it forces Japan to either to do Pearl light (with more risk of an unfavourable outcome) or skip Pearl altogether.

If Japan does not hit sz 30, build AC, fig, sub, trn on US1.

UK 2:
Move sz 30 fleet to sz 40, build AC sz 40

This threatens a unification of the UK/US fleets in sz 45 on US2/UK3. This combined fleet would consist of BB, 3 AC, 5 fig, 2 sub, 2 DD, 3 trn. This is too much for Japan to take on. If you add the 6th fig on US3/UK4 (and perhaps a UK sub that you build on UK3), you can take Bor or EI on these turns. Your combined Allied fleet would be so large that Japan has to bring something along the lines of 2 BB, 2 AC, 6 fig, bomber, DD, 5 trn, 4 sub to have a good shot at it, which requires a serious investment in the first few turns.

Without the UK IC, you would not have the extra UK carrier - a loaded carrier can make a big difference, and it may save you one turn in bringing down the Japanese in the Pacific. Of course, it comes at a substantial cost against Germany - that’s why it’s not played in most games, but it’s worth a try perhaps.

Japan can try to thwart your unification by moving its fleet to sz 45 itself on J2. I’d have to double check whether that is a worthwhile strategy.

It seems to be a popular view that Japan is wasting its money if it buys a complex before it has maxed out the first one (i.e. is transporting 8 units/turn to the mainland).  However, I am of the opinion that 2 tran 1 IC–this is assuming $1 bid to Japan–is the optimal J1 purchase for getting units to the mainland quickly.  There was an old thread (sorry, I couldn’t find the link on my first search and I’m too lazy to look harder) that had some calculations to this effect, but for the short version, consider:
—If you build 3 tran on J1, you can put 8 units in Asia on your second turn.  However, with 2 tran 1 IC you can get 9 units there: 6 from your three transports, and three more from your complex.  With a 2 IC purchase it’s down to 8 again, one from your transport and 6 from your complexes.  (I’m assuming throughout that the UK killed your transport in SZ 59 so that you only have one to start with.)  So if you’re trying to get as many units to Asia on J2 as you can, 2 tran 1 IC is the way to go. 
—4 tran on J1, using a bid of $2, is also a good way to start fast.  However, in this case your capacity outstrips your income; it will be a couple rounds before you can actually get new units fast enough to keep your transports busy.  The 2 tran 1 IC buy is better optimized at keeping your production/transport capacity matched up with the number of units you can afford to produce.  In particular, a 4 tran J1 purchase enables you to put as many as 10 units into Asia on J2 if you clean out Philippines, East Indies, Okinawa, and Wake, but then you run out of island units and can only make up to 8 new ones in Japan.  So you get a lot of inf on J2 but it’s more of an anomaly, where the 2 tran 1 IC buy gives you a smoother and more continuous startup.
—As far as location, I like FIC the best.  Kwang is farther from Moscow than either Fic or Man, so if you’re trying to put pressure on the Russians quickly you want either Fic or Man.  You can supply plenty of troops to the northern area from Japan itself, so the complex is needed more on the southern end.  Plus it enables you to get to Africa, Caucasus, etc better.
—So far I’ve been assuming KGF.  In KJF you should certainly be a bit more hesitant about getting factories up quickly.  However, I’ve found that a FIC complex, which is always where I build on J1 if I build a factory at all, can be very helpful in KJF.  Ideally when defending against an American fleet you want to defend as far out as possible, e.g. with a fleet in the Caroline or even Solomon islands.  However, if you’re forced to fall back, FIC is a great fallback point.  The key thing about it is that it borders all three of your valuable islands.  If you get in trouble you can fall back to SZ 36 and build more ships there to join your retreating fleet.  Often this will be enough to prevent the Americans from taking any of those expensive islands right away.  If your only factory is in Japan you’re forced to keep your navy farther north to incorporate the new builds, and the Americans have an easier time getting to the southern islands.

there’s a simple reason not to put an IC in brazil.

If britian doesn’t royally screw up, they should build the SA IC, and coupling that with the fact that it would take a few turns for both u and germany to actually engage, the IPC’s you spent on that factory and any units you built there would be better off used to take the fight into Europe or to combat Japan in the pacific and keeping them off US soil.

All in all, it’s Britian’s job to build the units in Africa, while the US just throws attacks at the Med fleet and any German land units on the continent. The US shouldn’t be responsible for reinforcing africa via Brazil.

@ncscswitch:

The North African Dominance (NAD) strat is FAR superior to the Brazil IC strat for keeping Africa in Allied hands.

It requires fewer transports, achieves the same purpose in allowing for Allied landings south of Sahara, and does so with far fewer IPC’s committed by the Allies.  It also maintains an Allied shift-threat to northern Europe, AND an Allied threat to Southern Europe that the Brazil IC does not accomplish.

But hey, if you want to waste the cash, feel free.

Yea, but you taught me very well how to bottle up the North African Dominance strategy with very little effort and resources with Germany.

Sorry to say it, but NAD is not superior, it’s inferior against a veteran player.  Too easy for Germany/Japan to dump in Egypt and now Germany is +9 IPC and England/America is +2 IPC (Algeria, Libya) for a net +7 to the Axis.

However, if moving from Brazil/S. Africa, the reverse is true.  Germany/Japan may have Egypt, Libya and Algeria but that’s only 4 IPC while England has the rest +7 IPC.

Just the way I see it, though.

Yes, it is possible to take DC with Japan if you pull Operation Canadian Shield or a variant thereof (like if only Japan invades and Germany does not, or something.)

Yes, it takes a while to do.

Yes, it can be done faster than I did it against a44bigdog (I just did not want to invest in the bombers to SBR DC every round.)

Yes, Russia will most likely still fall before DC (because Russian territories are mostly worthless, Russia’s besieged by two nations simultaneously on two flanks and England’s being chewed alive and cannot support as readily where as America has a few high value territories allowing them to build at least 6 infantry a round even if everything else is gone (C. USA and E. USA))

That said, I still feel that the invasion of Hollywood is more a distraction to keep America out of the war than an effort to capture America.

After you’ve accomplished your primary objective of getting Moscow and the secondary objective of securing Berlin, then you can develop the shield to take out DC, assuming you have not been kicked off the North American continent at that point.

In my humble opinion.

An IC in Anglo Egypt is the only one that makes sense, in my opinion. Africa is worth 12 IPCs per turn. If Germany, by buying an IPC in Africa, can hold Africa for an additional two turns, the benefits outweigh the cost, so it’s a good choice.